Part 3: Still Drilling Holes — How Islamic Apologetics Sinks Its Own Ship
Introduction: The Iceberg and the Drill
In Islam’s Titanic, we explored how the Qur’an struck its own iceberg by affirming the Bible — a scripture it simultaneously contradicts. That was fatal enough. But the story does not stop there.
Instead of addressing the contradictions, Muslim scholars and apologists picked up their drills. They invented explanations to “save” the ship — but each new defense only punched more holes in the hull.
The Qur’an’s Own Words
The Qur’an repeatedly affirms the Torah and the Gospel:
“We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light” (5:44).
“We gave Jesus the Gospel, in which was guidance and light” (5:46).
“Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein” (5:47).
“If you are in doubt about what We revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you” (10:94).
If those scriptures were lost, corrupted, or only partially authoritative, these verses would make no sense. Yet they stand in the Qur’an, clear and unambiguous.
Language That Won’t Budge
Apologists often claim the Qur’an only confirms the “original” Bible, not what Jews and Christians actually had in the 7th century. But the Arabic terms leave no room for such reinterpretation:
Musaddiq — to verify, certify, or authenticate as true.
Ma bayna — “what is before it,” literally “in its presence, at hand.”
Jesus “verifies what is before him of the Torah” (61:6); Muhammad “verifies the Book of Moses before it” (46:12). The Qur’an affirms the very texts that Jews and Christians possessed. There is no linguistic wiggle room for the idea of “lost originals.”
The Law of Identity: Injil = Injil
The Qur’an uses the same term, Injil, for:
The revelation given to Jesus.
The book Christians held in Muhammad’s time.
No distinction is made. Therefore, if the Gospels held by Christians were corrupt, the Qur’an would be misidentifying them. If the Qur’an is right, then Muslims must accept the Gospels as authentic. Either way, attempts to claim corruption conflict with its own language.
History Closes the Escape Hatch
Manuscript evidence supports textual continuity:
The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate centuries of Torah stability.
The 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus reflect Gospels materially identical to those circulating in Arabia.
Ironically, early Qur’anic manuscripts show more variation than the biblical texts they claim to confirm.
The Qur’an’s Warning Against Picking and Choosing
The Qur’an condemns selective belief:
“Do you then believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in the other? The recompense… is disgrace in this life, and the severest punishment in the Hereafter” (2:85).
Yet Islamic apologists adopt this very approach: affirming the Qur’an while denying the Bible. According to their own book, this is condemned.
The Invention of the Corruption Narrative
Initially, early Muslim commentators described tahrif mainly as misinterpretation or concealment, not textual alteration. The doctrine of a corrupted Bible became formalized later, especially with Ibn Ḥazm in 11th-century Spain, as a polemical response to Christianity.
Every Patch Creates New Holes
Excuses like:
“It confirms only the originals”
“It confirms general truths”
“It serves as a guardian correcting corruption”
…each conflict with the Qur’an’s language and logic, adding new contradictions rather than resolving the old ones.
Conclusion: The Crew Sank Their Own Ship
The result is unavoidable:
The Qur’an confirms the Bible.
Islam denies the Bible.
The corruption narrative is a later invention.
Modern apologists continue the same pattern. Far from saving Islam’s Titanic, each patch accelerates its sinking. The Qur’an’s affirmation of previous scriptures remains clear; attempts to reconcile or reinterpret it only drill more holes in its foundation.
This concluded the series
No comments:
Post a Comment